Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2018 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 1219 - AT - Service TaxLevy of service tax - Construction Services - Amount received in advance - abatement under N/N. 1/2006/ST dated 1/3/2006 - whether the appellants were required to pay the service tax on the amount received by them from the prospective buyers, In advance? - extended period of limitation - penalty. Held that:- No doubt as per section 67 of the Act a person in the case where the provisions of service is for consideration in money, is liable to pay the service tax on gross amount charged by the service provider for the service provided or to be provided by him. But simultaneously there is no denial of fact that the levy in question was imposed for the first time by the amendment to Finance Act 1994 with effect from 1/07/2010 to Section 65(105) (zzzh). The Notification No. 136/2010 as impressed upon by the appellant is perused. It becomes clear that vide the said Notification the advance receipt by a builder till 30th June 2010 for which service was provided by him after 30th June 2010 was not to be taxed thereby qualifying that services of appellant were not taxable prior 1/07/2010. When the explanation as inserted in Section 65(105)(zzzh) is read along with clarification given by CBEC vide letter No. 334/3 TRU dated 1/07/2010, it again becomes amply clear that if agreement is entered into or any payment is received for sale of complex or apartment in residential complex service tax will be leviable on such transaction only with effect from 1/07/2010 - the impugned demand for the period since 1/04/2007 till 30th June 2010 is not sustainable the same has wrongly been confirmed. Demand for the remaining period - Held that:- In view of Notification No. 1/2006 ST dated 1/3/2006 the abatement on construction services till 30th June 2010 was 67 per cent however the said Notification of amended vide Notification No. 29/2010 ST dated 22/06/2010 with a further amended vide Notification No. 26/2012 ST dated 20th June, 2012. Vide which the taxable service to the extent of 25 per cent only is made taxable. Hence the appellant is held to be entitled for the abatement at the rate of 75 per cent. The computation at the rate below is an error apparent, as such the same is liable to be re-computed the matter needs to be remanded for this limited purpose. Extended period of limitation - Held that:- The appellant was not liable to pay the service tax prior to 1st July 2010 there remains no reason for alleged suppression. Otherwise also to invoke the extended period of limitation heavy burden rests upon the Department to proof some positive Act on account on the assessee other than the mere inaction or failure to discharge the liability - extended period cannot be invoked. Penalty - Held that:- The apparent allegation is delay in discharging the liability the allegation as grave as of misinterpretation and suppression are not at all attributable. For the similar reason penalty also will not ordinarily to be imposed unless the party either acted deliberately in defiance of law and was guilty of dishonest conduct - penalty also set aside. The matter is sent back to the Adjudicating Authority below for the limited purpose of computing the demand after affording the abatement of the extent of 75 per cent - appeal allowed by way of remand.
|